Asset Protection Zone Project - Shire of Colac Otway · Asset Protection Zone Project Wye River and Separation Creek 6 3. Provide an established boundary from which to carry out hazard

Asset Protection Zone Project

Wye River and Separation Creek

© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2016

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Printed by DELWP

ISBN 978-1-76047-364-8 (Online)

ISBN 978-1-76047-364-8 (Online )

Disclaimer

This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Accessibility

If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the

DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136186, email [email protected],

or via the National Relay Service on 133 677 www.relayservice.com.au. This document is

also available on the internet at www.delwp.vic.gov.au.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.relayservice.com.au/

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/



1

Index of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

Technical Assessments .................................................................................................................................. 8

Initial BAL assessment ................................................................................................................................... 8

Impact assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 8

APZ Options ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Objectives ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Landscape bushfire management options ................................................................................................. 10

Geotechnical Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 11

Safety .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Biodiversity values and ecosystem functioning ........................................................................................ 13

Amenity ........................................................................................................................................................... 14

Community Support ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Bushfire Attack Level .................................................................................................................................... 15

Implementation and maintenance cost ....................................................................................................... 15

Implementation timeframes .......................................................................................................................... 16

Updated fuel and fire behaviour assessment ............................................................................................. 16

Land tenure .................................................................................................................................................... 17

Community Engagement .............................................................................................................................. 18

Field Trip ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Cluster Meetings ............................................................................................................................................ 18

Landscape Visualisation ............................................................................................................................... 18

Online Community Survey ............................................................................................................................ 20

Open Houses .................................................................................................................................................. 20

Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 21

Consequence analysis .................................................................................................................................. 21

Impacts on specific biodiversity values ...................................................................................................... 23

Impacts on geotechnical risk ....................................................................................................................... 24

Impacts on amenity ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Options comparison for BAL outcomes ..................................................................................................... 26

Financial Cost ................................................................................................................................................ 28

Bushfire risk reduction and support for landscape fuel management options ...................................... 28

Legal and land tenure analysis .................................................................................................................... 28

Fine grained fuel modelling and potential fire behaviour modelling ....................................................... 29

Community engagement ............................................................................................................................... 29

Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................... 32

BAL implications of APZs ............................................................................................................................. 32

Contents



2

Cost comparison ........................................................................................................................................... 33

Bushfire risk reduction outcomes for Wye River and Separation Creek ................................................. 34

Confidence of delivery .................................................................................................................................. 35

Legal considerations for establishment of an APZ .................................................................................... 35

Safety .............................................................................................................................................................. 35

Resourcing ..................................................................................................................................................... 36

Design and planning timelines ..................................................................................................................... 36

Community views on APZ options .............................................................................................................. 36

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 38

Future Directions ........................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A – Cost breakdown ..................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix B – Mapping products ................................................................................................................. 42

Appendix C – Cluster Engagement Maps ................................................................................................... 50

Index of Abbreviations

APZ Asset Protection Zone

BAL Bushfire Attack Level

COS Colac Otway Shire

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

EMV Emergency Management Victoria

FZ Flame Zone (highest BAL rating)

PV Parks Victoria

WRSC Wye River and Separation Creek

CFA Country Fire Authority

EMV Emergency Management Victoria



3

Executive Summary

The Wye River – Jamieson Track fire impacted on the townships of Wye River and Separation

Creek (WRSC) on 25 December 2015 and destroyed 116 structures: 95 in Wye River, 21 in

Separation Creek and damaged many others. The Wye River–Jamieson Track fire continued to

burn for 34 days until it was contained on 21 January 2016.

During the Resettle and Reconnect phase of recovery, at the request of the community, the

Victorian Government committed to undertaking a technical assessment of the feasibility, impacts,

consequences, benefits and costs of establishing an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) around the

townships – with a view to understand how any potential APZ could reduce the Bushfire Attack

Level (BAL) ratings of properties adjacent to forested areas and thereby reduce associated

constructions costs.

Technical assessment conducted by the project team involved:

The BAL ratings of properties adjacent to any potential APZ

operational feasibility of implementation – including safety

the effectives of an APZ in reducing bushfire risk

geotechnical impacts

biodiversity impacts

amenity (aesthetic) impacts

financial costs

community support for establishing and maintaining potential APZ options.

The assessment also considered likely implementation timeframes and whether potential APZ

options could be maintained year-on-year, a necessary requirement for BAL outcomes. The

project team also investigated the policy context and legal mechanisms that would enable

establishment and maintenance of an APZ on the private land surrounding WRSC. It was

determined that the legal considerations need to be considered separately, prior to any decision to

proceed.

Results indicated that while implementing some APZ options may be operationally feasible, there

inherent limitations, various geotechnical, biodiversity and amenity impacts, and significant

financial costs to establishing and maintaining an APZ around the townships of WRSC. The

technical assessment also showed that an APZ alone will not reduce the intensity or consequence

of a bushfire impacting on WRSC, given the design limitations of an APZ; its function, and

expected fire behaviour in the area. Moreover, there is little marginal benefit of implementing any

of the APZ options when compared to building private homes to the current regulatory framework

(and associated BAL ratings).

A comprehensive engagement program was run in conjunction with technical assessment, which

found the residents of WRSC held divergent views on the APZ options. In a community-wide

survey, 42% of respondents indicated that they wished to maintain the status quo or implement

‘something else’, as opposed to implementing an APZ. In the same survey, 74% of respondents

preferred strategies that would provide safer and easier access for firefighters to conduct fuel

management activities such as planned burning, as well as suppression in bushfire season, over

an outcome purely focused on BAL reduction.



4

These findings further supported the technical assessment which deemed that an APZ would not

be an effective approach to reducing BAL ratings of properties adjacent to forested areas, in order

to reduce associated construction costs.

While this project focussed on the construction of an APZ to reduce BAL ratings and constructions

costs, there have been significant benefits arising from the technical assessment undertaken. The

key benefit is that the more detailed and site specific information obtained during the assessment

has enabled BAL ratings to be reviewed and refined for 93 properties at WRSC.

The project has also highlighted the importance of a more strategic approach to reducing bushfire

risk and building community resilience. This approach, which includes consideration of vegetation

management, alongside the full range of actions that can be taken community, State and local

government across public and private land, will be pursued through community-based bushfire

management planning – a key implementation action in Safer Together – the Victorian

Government’s new approach to reducing the risk of bushfire.



5

The Wye River – Jamieson Track fire impacted on the townships of Wye River and Separation

Creek (WRSC) on 25 December, 2015. While no lives were lost, the fire impacted on 116

structures and destroyed many other assets, such as retaining walls, water tanks and septic

systems.

All new houses constructed in Victoria sited within a Bushfire Prone Area (BPA) or a Bushfire

Management Overlay (BMO) have to comply with Australian Standard 3959 – 2009: construction of

buildings in bushfire prone areas (AS 3959 or the Standard). The Standard outlines a variety of

building standards – Bushfire Attack Levels (BAL) which are a relative index of the anticipated level

of energy that a structure might be exposed to from a bushfire given the prevailing landscape

context. Structures with higher BAL ratings theoretically provide a greater level of protection to

building occupants and to the structure itself. There are six BAL ratings in total (LOW, 12.5, 19, 29,

40 and Flame Zone (FZ)). A BMO covers the entirety of the residential settlements of WRSC and

thus all new residential structures are normally required to complete a BMO / BAL assessment

before a planning permit can be issued.

To facilitate efficient rebuilding and reduce the cost of residents engaging consultants to conduct

individual BAL assessments, the Victoria Government contracted Terramatrix Pty. Ltd. to complete

a settlement-wide BAL assessment study. This approach ensured that a consistent methodology

was applied and expedited the process for residents. Based on landscape assumptions applied,

the Terramatrix report determined that most properties in WRSC would need to be rebuilt to BAL-

40 or BAL-FZ, with a small pocket required to BAL-29. The Terramatrix report suggested that if

alternative vegetation management could be implemented then BAL ratings would likely be lower.

When the Terramatrix BAL assessment study was released in early April, the report included

reference to the potential for vegetation management via an APZ to further reduce BAL ratings

around the township.

In response to requests by the WRSC community, the Victorian Government committed to

undertaking technical assessment of the feasibility, impacts, consequences, benefits, costs and

community support for a number of hypothetical vegetation modification options that would reduce

BAL ratings throughout the townships, primarily through implementing an APZ. APZs were seen

by the community at the time as a key mechanism to reduce BAL ratings and therefore reducing

the associated construction costs.

Heavily modified strips of vegetation (referred to herein as ‘APZ’), such as the options being

assessed for Wye River and Separation Creek, have limited usage across the state by DELWP

and Parks Victoria. APZs have been principally applied to Surf Coast townships including Lorne,

Moggs Creek and Anglesea given landscape and fire behaviour characteristics in these areas of

the Otways, which renders APZs an appropriate tool for supporting landscape fire management

and for reducing risk to townships. APZs are generally established as part of a suite of fire risk

management tools to deliver on the following objectives:

1. Provide vehicular access for firefighting vehicles and vegetation maintenance machines

2. Provide a safer work environment for firefighters in the event of a fire (reduced radiant heat

and safer access and egress).

Introduction



6

3. Provide an established boundary from which to carry out hazard reduction burning, or in the

event of an approaching bushfire, back burning operations.

4. Provide an area between vegetation and a structure to limit radiant heat and flame exposure,

and reduce short distance spotting (ember attack) on the adjacent structure in the event of an

approaching bushfire.

To conduct the APZ technical assessment, a project team (Table 1) including expert bushfire

scientists, was established to lead the direction of these assessments, with support from local

DELWP staff. The APZ Project Team consisted of the following members:

Table 1: Asset Protection Zone Project Team

Name: Organisation

Kevin Tolhurst The University of Melbourne

Justin Leonard CSIRO

Tony Miner A.S. Miner Geotechnical

Hamish Allan Terramatrix Pty. Ltd.

Erin Letovsky DELWP

Andrew Morrow DELWP

Liam Fogarty DELWP

Tim Gazzard DELWP

Peter Galvin DELWP

Tegan Brown DELWP

Bec Cross DELWP

Kim Stanley DELWP

More specifically, the purpose of this project was to:

evaluate the level and extent of fuel management that would be required to alter BAL ratings (with a focus on houses currently rated Flame Zone) and reduce construction costs

provide a more detailed assessment of fire behaviour in key fuel and terrain locations, at the settlement-wide and individual level, and a more detailed fuel assessment within the township, which may inform assessments

investigate broad land and fuel management options that are more effective based on landscape constraints

assess the feasibility of implementing an APZ

investigate and assess the impacts of constructing an APZ (erosion, amenity, ecological and other potential factors), as well as the potential benefits in terms of reducing radiant heat exposure for properties and impacting BAL ratings

assess the costs of constructing and maintaining an APZ



7

The APZ Project Team addressed the following key questions:

1. What APZ (in terms of width, location in relation to assets, vegetation retention) would be

required to deliver BAL-40 ratings for the greatest number of perimeter properties within the

town, currently rated at BAL-FZ? What would be required to do this?

2. What are other opportunities or broader land management options available to reduce the

consequence of fire arrival and establishing asset protection in the landscape, and what

opportunities would the community wish to pursue?

3. Are there areas in and around the township where vegetation management could be

implemented to reduce BAL-FZ ratings of properties?

This report outlines the technical methodology that was employed during the APZ project and

expands on the results of those analyses. It also outlines the community engagement strategies

employed during this project to:

inform and educate community members about APZ options, purposes, and uses in other areas of the Otways, as well as within the townships, and

seek community views and input on APZ options assessed as part of this project.

The community views, feedback and preferences on APZ options represent one part of this multi-

faceted assessment of options. This report also seeks to place the APZ Project in a whole of

landscape bushfire management context aligned to the following principles embodied in Safer

Together, the Government’s approach for reducing the risk of bushfire in Victoria:

Putting the community at the centre of our work

Ensuring land and fire agencies are working together

Being able to measure the success of our actions, and

Using improved science and technology to inform making better decisions.

8

Initial BAL assessment

The initial Terramatrix settlement-wide BAL assessment was released in April. The release of the

initial settlement-wide BAL assessment led to the instigation of this APZ technical analysis.

Impact assessment

Due to the complexity of the area under consideration for an APZ, the project team determined that

there would be a variety of potential APZ options. When assessing the impacts of a variety of

options across multiple objectives, a consequence table is an effective way of organising and

displaying this information. The APZ options and objectives relevant to the study are outlined

below.

APZ Options

Five potential APZ options (Table 2) have been included in this report, some of which involve

implementation of an APZ and some do not. These options have been selected from an initial set

of nine candidate options analysed during the course of this project. These five options were

selected for analysis within this report because they most effectively represent the key features

within the nine original options that were presented at the community cluster meetings. Full details

on the nine options initially developed are available within the related Community Engagement

Report.

Table 2: APZ options and descriptions for each

Option name Description and assumptions

Option A

(No change)

No APZ, status quo

BAL

No change to BALs gazetted in Planning Scheme, based on

settlement-wide BAL assessment (Terramatrix, 2016).

- assumption that residents will rebuild on same building footprint

Option B

(Re-siting)

Re-siting of dwellings

where feasible, no APZ

No change to BALs gazetted in Planning Scheme, based on

settlement-wide BAL assessment (Terramatrix, 2016).

- assumption that residents will rebuild, but where possible /

feasible*, will re-site dwellings, to a more favourable position

within their existing blocks to enable construction to BAL-40

standard, and will use same footprint size of structure

-

Option C

(Revised BAL and

resiting)

Refreshed BAL

modelling plus re-siting

homes in blocks where

possible, no APZ

Application of refreshed BAL modelling using refined fuel and localised

fire behaviour modelling inputs.


feasible*, will re-site dwellings, to a more favourable spot within

their existing blocks to enable construction to BAL-40 standard,

and will use same footprint size of structure

Technical Assessments



9

Option D

(Revised BAL and

operationally feasible

APZ)

Operationally feasible

APZ, refreshed BAL

modelling, re-siting of

homes where possible

APZ implemented only in locations where operationally possible to do

so on basis of slope constraints (areas less than 25 degrees), and

being “minimum distance,” (i.e. the width of the APZ being the

minimum required to move the adjacent house site out of BAL-FZ

exposure)




and will use same footprint size of structure



Option E

(Revised BAL and

maximum APZ)

APZ surrounding

township (operationally

feasible and not

feasible), refreshed

BAL modelling, re-

siting of homes where

possible

APZ implemented around the township, regardless of operational

feasibility as assessed using slope constraints and being “minimum

distance,” (i.e. the width of the APZ being the minimum required to

move the adjacent house site out of BAL-FZ exposure).

- Assumption that residents will rebuild, but where possible /



and will use same footprint size of structure.



*Indicates where it was considered feasible to re-site dwellings within the boundary of the

allotment. Dwellings were identified using a desktop assessment with re-siting constrained only

where:

slope was greater than 25 degrees

the allotment could accommodate the existing dwelling shape and size within the parcel,

and enable orientation to remain unchanged (i.e. dwelling could be shifted sideways or

back, but not rotated)

the house was destroyed (if the house was undamaged or partly damaged, then these

houses were not counted).

Objectives

The efficacy of the APZ options was measured against a variety of objectives –things that the

residents of WRSC, the broader community, DELWP and its partner agencies value. Some

objectives are numerical, and therefore relatively simplistic to measure and compare. Others, such

as ‘community values’ are more difficult and require a constructed scale to measure a relative

change in efficacy for different APZ options across the objective. There are three types of

performance measures that are utilised in decision making contexts: natural measures, proxy

measures and constructed scales. Where possible, natural measures are preferred as they are the

most simple and require no interpretation on the part of the decision maker. For example, if

reporting on the economic impact associated with a hazard, the natural measure is dollars.



10

However, in many circumstances, natural measures may be difficult to express quantitatively. In

these circumstances, the project team decided to use either constructed scales or proxy measures.

Proxy measures were used to measure biodiversity impacts (e.g. habitat scores) and constructed

scales for measures such as geotechnical risk and safety of staff. In the developing the

constructed scales we were guided by the work of Gregory (2012) 1“Structured Decision Making –

A practical guide to Environmental Management Choices”.

Landscape bushfire management options

The ability of APZ options to benefit landscape bushfire management activities in the area was

assessed on the basis of whether APZ options delivered on key performance criteria associated

with the use of APZs as part of broader landscape bushfire risk management. Assessing broader

firefighting benefits of APZs is critical in understanding the relative contribution APZs may provide

as part of a holistic strategy to reduce the risk of bushfire to WRSC townships.

APZs provide township bushfire risk reduction benefits where they are able to effectively:

Provide safe access, particularly to land and fire managers – often through continuous

strips of cleared vegetation with clear links to existing access networks

Provide safe workplaces for firefighters and crew, during fire suppression operations and

for fuel reduction burning

Reduce flame length and exposure of flame length to assets

Reduce short distance spotting of embers, which is a major contributor to house loss in

bushfires

The ability of APZs to meet key performance criteria and provide benefits was assessed by

DELWP bushfire risk analysts and operational experts, as well as by fire behaviour experts. A

constructed scale was utilised to explore the variation in performance of each alternative.

APZs that were established only to reduce adjacent BAL ratings from FZ to BAL-40 generally only

rated as having a benefit of either “none” or “low”.

Table 3: Constructed scale description of the benefit each APZ option provides to

landscape bushfire management strategies.

Benefit Class Description

None Doesn’t provide an benefit to fire fighters

Low May provide a small tactical advantage to fire fighters (generally meets 1

out of the 3 criteria.

Moderate Provides some benefit to fire fighters (Generally meets 2 out of the 3

criteria)

High Provides a significant advantage to fire fighters (Generally meets all the

criteria)

1 Gregory, G, Failing, L, Hardstone, M, Long, G, McDaniels, T & Ohlson, D 2012, Structured Decision Making – a practical guide to environmental

management choices, Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex.



11

Geotechnical Analysis

Geotechnical site assessments and analyses were conducted by Tony Miner (A.S Miner Pty. Ltd.)

to provide advice on potential erosion risks and consequences as a product of vegetation removal

for APZ works and works during implementation. More specifically, geotechnical analysis included:

assessment of the impacts of any roading and clearing based on APZ mapping and the

retaining wall and drainage strategy in townships

providing advice on potential erosion and drainage risks (erosion risks to life and properties

upslope and downslope, and safety risks to those accessing APZ e.g. firefighters)

validating on ground slope angles for these areas.

undertaking geotechnical assessments of the feasibility of installing bunkers in areas where

it would not be possible to modify BAL ratings by altering vegetation.

Outputs from these analyses were used to determine where APZs were feasible from a

geotechnical perspective and the relative risks to the geotechnical stability of the area.

Geotechnical information was utilised to shape the APZ options and to provide a geotechnical risk

context for APZ decision-making.

The description of geotechnical risk was completed for each segment of APZ by consultants A.S.

Miner Geotechnical and Baynes Geologic. The resulting report, “Geotechnical implications

associated with the establishment of asset protection zone APZs in the townships of Wye River

and Separation Creek” provides a comprehensive overview of the initial review of APZ technical

risk.

Using Miner and Baynes’ work as the foundation, DELWP worked with A.S Miner Geotechnical to

develop a complete risk assessment for each section of APZ. This utilised the “Practice note

guidelines for Landslide Risk Management 2007 – Appendix C: Landslide Risk Assessment” risk

assessment procedure as the basis for assigning risk of each hazard (shallow slide, sheet erosion,

gully erosion) to assets potentially affected (e.g. roads, houses, creeks/rivers, etc.)

Table 4: Example of Geotechnical Risk Assessment for a section of APZ.

To simplify the description of geotechnical risk, a constructed scale was developed with 3 classes

(Table 5) that describe the care required to mitigate landslide and erosion risks in the landscape.

Table 5: Description of mitigation care required to ameliorate geotechnical risk

Geotechnical Description

Site

Geotech

report

identifier Description of Site Hazard Asset Consequence

Likelihood -

Pre-works

Risk -

Pre-works

Likelihood -

Post works

Risk -

Post Works

Shallow Landslide Cassidy Tk Minor Likely Moderate Almost Certain High

Shallow Landslide Houses Insignificant Likely Low Almost Certain Low

Sheet Erosion Cassidy Tk Insignificant Possible Low Likely Low

Sheet Erosion Houses Insignificant Possible Low Likely Low

•Several larger areas between 30-40 degrees

and other areas generally above 25 degrees.

•Erosion and/or sedimentation will probably

occur in most circumstances.

•Reasonable vegetaion now exists which is

similar to post fire density and coverage but

shows some minor signs of impact;

WN4

5-

Dunoon

Rd



12

Mitigation Care Class

Very High Care

Deep Seated Landslide Area and/or active erosion is present and >

35 degrees and/or slopes show evidence of earlier repeated failures

High Care Between 25-35 degrees and active/erosion is present and/or slopes

show some evidence of earlier failures

Moderate Care Slope is between 10 and 25 degrees and/or Erosion and/or

sedimentation will probably occur in most circumstances within

drainage lines;

Safety

The potential safety risks that each APZ option posed were assessed and categorised by likelihood

and magnitude of consequence. The risk assessment process was undertaken in collaboration

with experienced operational managers within the Otway District to evaluate the risk of injury or

death to those using or accessing the potential APZs, including firefighters, crews, or maintenance

contractors. The risk assessment process was undertaken using DELWP’s “Risk Management

Guidelines v1.0” risk matrix (pages 23-27).

Risks were considered on the basis of the steep terrain, which presents risk of crew slips and falls

and machinery roll-over. Risks were also considered on the basis of the APZ option meeting future

performance criteria, such as providing a safe working environment for firefighters or crew during

fire suppression or management operations.

A key consideration in the discussion of safety risks associated with the establishment and

maintenance of APZs was the likelihood of crew working with machinery on slopes in excess of 25

degree – which has historically been the slope limit for DELWP-contracted machinery. Given the

limited experience of working in excess of 25 degrees with existing machinery, a conservative

approach was utilised in assigning the likelihood of machine failure.

Similar to the Geotechnical Risk assessment, a simple constructed scale was developed to

communicate the relative safety risks to the community. This constructed scale is shown below in

Table 6.

Table 6: Staff and Contractor Safety Risk Classes used in the constructed scale

Safety Risk Class Description

Very High Risk

Over the lifetime of the project, likely that there would be

serious injury or possibly death to crew or contractors.

Almost certain there would be some minor injuries that may

require hospitalisation.

High Risk

Over the lifetime of the project there is a reduced chance of

serious injury or death, but it is still possible. Almost certain

there would be some minor injuries that may require

hospitalisation.

Moderate Risk Serious injury is possible to occur over the lifetime of the



13

project. Minor injury is likely.

Biodiversity values and ecosystem functioning

All of the APZ options under consideration involve modifying the vegetation around the township.

When considering conducting works on public land, DELWP has to take into account the

biodiversity impacts during establishment and maintenance. These assessments include our

responsibilities under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (VIC) and the Environmental

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

Impacts on native vegetation resulting from fuel treatments (APZ establishment and maintenance)

were assessed. These varied according to vegetation type and APZ cluster. A Biodiversity impact

and offset requirements report (DELWP 2016) was generated for APZ options using modelled

data, specifically, those APZ options representing “minimum distance” (i.e. minimum width required

to deliver BAL outcomes).

Modelled data was used to calculate native vegetation losses, offsets, and associated impacts on

threatened species habitat.

Native vegetation was assessed using a desktop analysis of modelled vegetation condition and

field observations.

Three distinct vegetation types exist across the proposed APZs:

Riparian Forest

This vegetation is found along Riverside Drive. It consists of a stand of mature Blackwood

trees and is characterised by dense patches of shrubs, ferns and grasses.

Coastal Headland Scrub

This vegetation is found close to the coast along Iluka Avenue and Sturt Court. The

vegetation is characterised by wind-pruned scrub to 2-3 m tall with occasional emergent

eucalypts on steep coastal headlands.

Shrubby Foothill Forest

This is the main vegetation type in the area and covers all other APZs clusters around Wye

River and Separation Creek. The vegetation is found on ridges and exposed aspects and

consists of a medium eucalypt forest dominated by Blue-gum with lower strata of narrow-

leaved shrubs, ferns and grasses.

Results represented a partial loss of native vegetation as opposed to a total loss of vegetation

across APZs, to reflect vegetation modification requirements of APZs.

Native vegetation offset costs were determined subjectively as the median of market-based prices,

and were calculated at $135,000 per General Biodiversity Equivalence Unit (BEU).

Other biodiversity attributes of each vegetation type and APZ cluster were also assessed using a

combination of desktop analyses and field observations, and a constructed scale was used to

score biodiversity attributes. Habitat for all rare or threatened species in the area, such as Powerful

Owl, Grey Goshawk and the Otway Black Snail was considered in the analysis.



14

Amenity

Creation of an APZ typically involves removal of 50 per cent of the canopy in fully-vegetated areas;

removal of understorey vegetation, and maintenance of an area to resemble a park-like landscape.

While it is difficult to estimate the number of trees per hectare this would translate to, in many

areas of the town the level of canopy cover would remain the same as its present (post-fire) level.

An example of an APZ implemented in Moggs Creek is shown below, in Figure 1.

Figure 1: APZ implemented in Moggs Creek, with understorey

removed

Community members place significant value on the visual amenity offered by Wye River and

Separation Creek, and this value has the potential to be significantly impacted by implementation

of APZs.

Impacts of options on visual amenity of the township were assessed using data obtained through

community surveys, conducted during neighbourhood meetings (held July 2016) and made

available online to the whole community. Community members were shown 3D visual

representations of various APZ options within Wye River and Separation Creek, based on

estimated canopy cover removal following three years of regrowth, and feedback was sought on

their views. This is detailed within the community engagement section.

Community Support

Community support was measured using data obtained through surveys provided to residents

attending neighbourhood cluster meetings (described in the relevant section below) and a survey

made available to the broader community, to capture views and preferences on APZ options.

Further detail is provided within the community engagement section, and in the Community

Engagement Report.



15

Bushfire Attack Level

Implications for each APZ option in terms of the relative reduction in Bushfire Attack Level (BAL)

which could be assessed for each property were considered. Only properties in the township with

fire-impacted house sites (those destroyed or damaged) which had full or partial BAL-FZ exposure

were considered as a starting point for this assessment, given the public commitment to investigate

technical aspects of APZs and impacts on BAL ratings for affected residents who may wish to

rebuild existing dwellings. Given the known localised impacts of APZs, the potential impacts on

BAL ratings are limited within these townships to those properties immediately adjacent to any

potential APZ option. Therefore, the benefit is limited to a potential reduction from BAL-FZ to BAL-

40 for the properties studied.

Furthermore, implications for BAL ratings for properties of each option are only hypothetical and

are not guaranteed. Any proposed change to BAL ratings currently gazetted in the Colac Otway

Planning Scheme requires approval by the Minister for Planning, and would need to reflect a

current state of hazard reduction - meaning those implementing the option would likely need to

provide assurance of ongoing maintenance of APZ areas to a required standard before any

change is considered. Given that these changes are not guaranteed nor linked with certainty to any

APZ option, the assessment of BAL ratings for properties associated with APZ options are purely

for comparison and form a technical assessment only. BAL assessments were undertaken by

Terramatrix Pty Ltd.

As part of this project, new and more refined information was collected on township fuels and on

potential fire behaviour within the townships, on the basis of more detailed site inspections. The

use of this new information is detailed under Updated fuel and fire behaviour assessment

Implementation and maintenance cost

The financial cost of implementing APZ options was estimated on the basis of both a required

establishment (or initial implementation) cost to create the APZ and an annual maintenance cost.

Annual maintenance costs reflect the need to maintain vegetation modifications in a prescribed

state, to realise benefits and meet performance requirements. The steep terrain and attributes of

the land surrounding Wye River and Separation Creek presents unique challenges both for the

establishment and maintenance of APZs around the townships. Costs attributed to APZ options

are indicative only and were estimated using standard cost parameters for establishment of APZs,

as well as contingencies associated with works in similar terrain. These are summarised in

Appendix 1.

Implementation costs of options included estimated costs of works, labour, project management,

and those associated with meeting certain statutory requirements, such as biodiversity offsets and

cultural heritage management plan development. Establishment costs also considered the

potential option of securing interests in land on which APZ options were proposed (such as

potential purchase or compensation).

Maintenance costs of options, which are represented as annual, ongoing costs, include

maintenance works and labour, as well as costs associated with ensuring compliance of

landowners with vegetation management requirements (education, enforcement, etc.).

Presentation of APZ options to community members did not address attribution of establishment or

maintenance costs to any particular party, given the potential need to develop appropriate cost-

sharing arrangements or resourcing arrangements reflective of the Safer Together principles.



16

Consequence tables presented to community included only maintenance costs represented as a

proportion of DELWP’s Otway District annual budget for APZ maintenance for comparison, with

figures provided where requested.

Implementation timeframes

Implementation timeframes for APZ options were based on operational experience in implementing

APZs and on information obtained through geotechnical analysis. Geotechnical risk needs to be

managed throughout the process, which may increase the total amount of time required to fully

establish any APZ. The implementation timeframes also incorporate time required to obtain

necessary statutory approvals, such as cultural heritage management plans, detailed biodiversity

offset assessments, and land acquisition or management agreements with private landowners.

Neighbourhood cluster analysis

Initial desktop assessments identified that only those properties immediately adjacent to potential

APZ options – primarily, properties on the perimeter of the townships – would be candidates for

any potential reduction in BAL ratings associated with an APZ. Effectively, APZs would only reduce

potential hazard or flame exposure to certain properties on the perimeter of the town, to the extent

that this may affect these properties’ BAL ratings.

Field assessments were undertaken in April and May 2016 to identify areas in the townships which

would require similar vegetation management treatments in order to impact BAL ratings, on the

basis of terrain / topography and fuel type, as well as required maintenance regimes.

This analysis identified distinct clusters of properties within the townships, which would all, in

theory, be subject to a similar vegetation management treatment on or adjacent to their properties

in order to provide a potential BAL rating reduction to one or more properties within that cluster.

The purpose of this clustering was to facilitate engagement with the community and discuss

options, impacts, and consequences of APZ options at a localised scale, with community members

who would be directly affected by APZ options, either through potential impacts to BAL ratings,

visual amenity, geotechnical concerns, or other consequences.

Eight neighbourhood cluster groups were established on the basis of the initial analysis and are

shown in the map in Appendix 2.

Updated fuel and fire behaviour assessment

During the APZ project, bushfire experts Kevin Tolhurst, Justin Leonard and Hamish Allan

described fuel inputs and likely bushfire behaviour in Wye River and Separation Creek in a more

specific and site-specific manner than had initially been considered in the first iteration of BAL

assessments. These refined inputs informed a refreshed assessment of BAL ratings settlement-

wide for use within the technical analyses of APZ options. This process has been outlined in a

complimentary report by Terramatrix.

Any potential application or use of refreshed BAL ratings for properties, beyond the purpose of

informing assessment of APZ options, is outside the scope of this APZ project. Should these be

proposed for consideration in any planning scheme amendment, any Ministerial approvals required

would be pursued separately and outside the scope of this work.

Additionally, Kevin Tolhurst and Justin Leonard presented to the community at a number of forums,

including Community Resilience Committee meetings in April and May 2016, and broader



17

community meetings in May 2016. They discussed fire behaviour within the Otways and

specifically, Wye River and Separation Creek, as well as what the likely considerations of any APZ

may be given the nature of fire behaviour within the region and uniquely within this area of the

Otways.

Land tenure

The land on which APZ options are situated is almost exclusively privately owned, and is part of a

forested estate managed by trusts. Most APZs currently in operation across Victoria are

established on Crown land, within DELWP or its land managers’ estates. Only a small portion of

one of the APZ options under consideration in this study would be situated on public land, including

Crown land reserve managed by the Otway Coast Committee (situated below Iluka Avenue, above

Paddy’s Path), appointed under the Crown Land Reserves Act 1978 and internal Colac Otway

Shire Council reserves.

The majority of APZ options considered, however, would be located on the privately-owned forest

estate surrounding the townships. This land is shown as outlined in yellow in the aerial photograph

(Fig 2). A detailed land tenure map is provided in Appendix 2.

There is no precedent for this kind of APZ in Victoria. Therefore, if an APZ were implemented, an

appropriate mechanism or agreement would need to be put in place to govern management of the

APZ over its lifespan.

Figure 2: Privately-owned land surrounding Wye River and Separation Creek townships, outlined in yellow, representing the privately owned estate land.



18

A comprehensive community engagement program was designed to complement the technical

components of the APZ Project. The primary objectives of the engagement program were to assist

community members of WRSC to understand and explore the costs and benefits of an APZ in their

townships and to elicit community feedback to include in decision making commentary. The

engagement approach included a field trip; localised ‘cluster’ on-site meetings; a landscape

visualisation tool; an online survey and two community open houses.

Field Trip

A bus tour was held on 3 July 2016 to provide residents an opportunity to discuss the landscape

context, fire behaviour and the variety of impacts that an APZ might have on community values

with bushfire experts such as Kevin Tolhurst and local land and fire managers. This tour also

provided participants an opportunity to understand the visual impact of any actions by visiting

existing APZs in Anglesea and Fairhaven, as well as speaking with community members (CFA

Captain, local resident living adjacent to an APZ) about their experiences of living close to or

working in existing APZs.

Cluster Meetings

DELWP held eight neighbourhood cluster meetings in WRSC on 8, 9, 15, and 16 July 2016 to

discuss the impacts of potential APZ options at a localised scale. The cluster meetings presented

an opportunity for residents to discuss related issues with experts in bushfire behaviour, planning,

geotechnical risk and operational risk and to understand the consequences of APZ in greater

detail, whilst sharing their perspectives, ideas and feedback on the different options considered in

the project. The cluster meetings were also designed to elicit information from the community to

assist populating the consequence tables. This included how people thought their visual and

landscape amenity may be impacted, and their level of support or opposition for the various AZP

options.

Landscape Visualisation

DELWP engaged GHD to provide a 3D visualisation product that would display the likely impact of

APZ options in a visual and interactive format that was based on the aesthetics of the area. The

visualisation tool was available for residents to view at the clusters meetings, and has since been

utilised for a variety of engagement events.

The options shown in the visualisation tool included:

No treatment

Minimum distance APZ, being the minimum width of an APZ that would be required in a

cluster area, on the basis of fire behaviour and vegetation modelling, that would remove

a property from BAL-FZ exposure

DELWP standard 40 metre wide APZ, being the standard width of APZ that DELWP

would usually implement in order to provide vehicular access for firefighters and support

planned burning options

Adjacent homes with examples of well-maintained and poorly maintained vegetation.

Community Engagement



19

Figure 3: An example of a 40 m APZ as illustrated in the visualisation tool.

Figure 4: An example of a minimum distance APZ as illustrated in the visualisation tool.



20

Online Community Survey

An online survey to capture broader community opinions regarding APZs was undertaken so the

project team could ensure that the views of those unable to attend cluster meetings in WRSC were

integrated into decision making. The survey was publicised through the community website

established for the Wye River and Separation Creek recovery program and at community

meetings. The data from this survey complemented that obtained through neighbourhood cluster

meetings.

Respondents to the survey were provided with a two minute video describing the appearance of

APZs, using 3D imagery. The video can be seen at https://youtu.be/L_IhAIUZvnc. Further

information on the visualisation tool can be found in the APZ Engagement Report.

Open Houses

Open House Events were held in Wye River (7 August) and Melbourne (10h August) to share the

results of the field trip, cluster meetings and online survey with the wider community. The Open

House Events also provided an additional opportunity to discuss APZ options, consequences and

potential benefits.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_L-5FIhAIUZvnc&d=CwMGaQ&c=JnBkUqWXzx2bz-3a05d47Q&r=GOQNZJGgEwpD064auxIplp2x5Q4EP2QMIE1f9nMwO2Q&m=4LY-ri-zLi8bQpESz0kUDw7GQa4HQs9y-zOcJdRt9H4&s=k9e9UtDeQHG6DOMdn0jOTDYMFRnPKNTeAUhA2ubGB1Y&e=



21

Establishing and maintaining any of the APZ options presented in this assessment have both financial and non-financial costs; the financial costs relating to the establishment and long-term maintenance of the APZs and non-financial costs are referred to through the results as ‘consequences’ – the impact of the APZ on biodiversity, amenities and neighbourhood views on APZs.

Consequence analysis

The following chapter reports on the consequences of implementing a variety of APZ options around the townships. A summary of the consequence analysis, based on amalgamation of analyses performed for each of the 8 neighbourhood cluster groups, is provided below (Table 7). Consequence analyses for each of eight neighbourhood cluster meetings are provided in

Appendix 3. Note that for some objectives, such as biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and

landscape amenity, results are unable to be amalgamated in the below table, and are detailed in

the individual cluster consequence tables in Appendix 3. Specific data on community views

obtained through surveys of cluster meeting attendees are also provided in Appendix 3.

Results



22

Table 7: Consolidated consequence table for each APZ option, with results for each objective. Results are a combination of each on-site cluster meeting, combined into one table.

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option E

All Clusters

Summary Table

Objectives

1) Minimise house

sites (destroyed and

damaged) required to

rebuild to Flame Zone

BAL

Count of houses

within flame zone

(full or partial

exposure)

•Count includes fire affected house sites that are fully or partially in flame

zone;

•Re-siting is only considered an option for destroyed houses.63 47 36 25 5

2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits

1. Provide vehicular access for firefighter vehicles and vegetation

maintenance machines and has good connectivity

2. Provide a safer work environment for firefighters in the event of a fire

(reduced radiation and easy access and egress).

3. Provide an established boundary from which to carryout hazard reduction

burns and/or backburning operations.

4. Reduce the radiation and ember loads on neighbouring houses from an


No Benefit No Benefit No Benefit Low Benefit Low Benefit

3) Minimise Safety

Risk to Fire Fighters

and Contractors

during establishment

& maintenance

Constructed Scale

Assessment reflects exposure for a 50 year period in ALL APZs in Wye

River and Separation Creek

• Very High = Over the lifetime of the project expect that there would be

some serious injury or possibly death. Almost certain there would be some

minor injuries that may require hospitalisation.

• High = Over the lifetime of the project there is a reduced chance of

serious injury or death, but it is still possible. Almost certain there would be

some minor injuries that may require hospitalisation.

• Moderate = Serious injury is possible to occur over the lifetime of the


None None None Moderate Risk Very High Risk

4) Minimise erosion /

landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks

• Very High = Deep Seated Landslide Area and/or active erosion is present

and > 35 degrees and/or slopes show evidence of earlier repeated failures

• High = between 25-35 degrees and active/erosion is present and/or

slopes show some evidence of earlier failures

• Moderate = Slope is between 10 and 25 degrees and/or Erosion and/or

sedimentation will probably occur in most circumstances within drainage

lines;

NA NA NA Moderate Care High - Very High Care

5) Minimise

maintenance cost

% of total DELWP

Otway District APZ

maintenance

budget

% is for the whole package of works across all the sites.

Annual budget for Otway Fire District for APZ maintenance is approximately

$20K.

Estimated cost of maintenance for Option D is $85K/ year and for Option E

is $115K/ year.

NA NA NA 375% 575%

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

7) Maximise

Community AttitudeConstructed Scale

Divergent community

views on APZs; almost 30%

of those surveyed prefer

status quo.

Supported as part

of a broader

range of options

to manage

bushfire risk and

impacts to towns,

vs just an APZ.

Specific feedback

on this option not

sought, but would

be supported as a

means of more

accurately

reflecting hazard in

townships.

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)

• 100 – High quality vegetation; large trees, and all understory strata

present. No weeds. High biodiversity value.

• 50 – Moderate quality vegetation; some large trees and understorey

vegetation. Some weeds.

• 10 – Low quality vegetation; no trees or understorey vegetation, weed

infested. Low biodiversity value.

9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)

Timeframes takes into account:

• Ease of implementation - Particularly slope

• Tenure of Land

• Geotechnical and Safety Risks

NA NA NA 2-4 years 2-4 years

Options

Habitat Scores are site specific.

The best habitat score possible is 66, and worst is 30.

APZs generally half the habitat score. Due to challenges in amalgamating scores across clusters,

consequences for this objective are set out in the individual cluster consequence tables.

APZ implemented only in

locations where

operationally possible,

and applying refreshed

BAL assessment.

APZ implemented across

the whole township despite

operational limitations, and

applying refreshed BAL

assessment. Represents

operationally and not

operationally feasible APZ.

Performance

MeasureAdditional information about performance measure

BAL ratings as gazetted in the

Planning Scheme, based on

WRSC BAL Assessment Study

(Terramatrix, 2016). No APZ.

BAL ratings as

gazetted in

Planning Scheme,

and re-siting

building footprints

outside FZ within

blocks to achieve

lower BAL ratings

where possible. No

APZ.

Refreshed BAL ratings

using updated,

localised fuel

assessments and fire

modelling within the

townships. Building

footprints re-sited

outside FZ where

possible on

properties. No APZ.

Requires canopy cover of 50% (reduction from full

canopy cover) and removal of understory

vegetation. Community views captured in cluster

analyses.

Divergent community veiws apparent on APZs.

For those supporting APZs, more than 70% prefer

options that deliver overall bushfire safety and

management benefits vs. just BAL reduction

outcomes. The APZ options proposed do not

deliver on this community preference.

No broad-scale vegetation modification required; vegetation

modification may be at allotment level. Community views captured

in cluster analyses.



23

Impacts on specific biodiversity values

In general, the condition of existing native vegetation and habitat in APZ clusters is considered to

be ‘moderate’ to ‘low’; due to past vegetation disturbance in the township interface area and

exposure to weeds and predation. However, the presence of vegetation and perceived

environmental value is an important aesthetic value for community members in Wye River and

Separation Creek townships, as expressed during multiple community meetings and through

community feedback. Feedback from the community suggested there was greater concern about

potential removal of vegetation as opposed to a reduction in habitat quality.

Depending on the characteristics of the vegetation, fuel treatment will result in a partial loss of

native vegetation, and a reduction in modelled vegetation condition by 50 per cent (rather than a

total loss.)

By looking at the different habitat attributes used to assess vegetation condition, impacts on native

vegetation and habitat will broadly consist of the following:

Large trees – removal of some hazardous trees, retention of most large trees

Tree canopy cover – retention of at least 20 per cent canopy where possible

Understory – removal of most understory vegetation, retention of some patches

Weeds – possible increase in weed invasion

Recruitment – minimal vegetation recruitment due to ongoing slashing / mulching

Logs / Litter – removal of most logs, debris and stumps

Overall, vegetation modification for APZ creation will result in a partial loss of native vegetation,

and some large trees and patches of understorey vegetation will be retained. By retaining these

habitat attributes, the vegetation can still retain its basic ecological function.

Habitat for rare or threatened species was also assessed. Results indicate that APZs do not have

a proportional impact on threatened species due to the small amount of clearing proposed relative

to the large extent of habitat available in the surrounding landscape. Modelled habitat for the

threatened Australian Mudfish exists in Wye River, which partially overlaps with the Valley Rd and

Riverside Drive APZs assessed. Given that the species inhabits wetland and river systems, the

proposed APZs will not have an impact and the species and therefore does not require any further

consideration. Further information is detailed in the Biodiversity impact and offset requirements

report (DELWP 2016) which has been generated using modelled data. This report is available from

the DELWP Barwon Otway Bushfire Risk Landscape Team.

Possible impacts on the following biodiversity values will vary according to the vegetation type and

neighbourhood cluster. The neighbourhood cluster tables provide detailed scoring for each value

in each APZ cluster and treatment option, and are summarised in the below table.

Table 8: The possible impacts on each biodiversity value under consideration as a result of implementing any of the APZ options.

BIODIVERSITY IMPACT IMPACT DESCRIPTION



24

VALUE

Native vegetation condition

Moderate Partial (50%) loss of native vegetation across treatment options, including some large trees and understorey vegetation.

Koalas Low to Moderate

The main vegetation type in the area is Shrubby Foothill Forest (Blue-gum), which is the species’ preferred habitat. Impacts however expected to be Low to Moderate for both treatments due to the retention of large trees and 20% canopy cover.

Birds Low to Moderate

Impacts are expected to be Low to Moderate for treatments due to the retention of large trees and 20% canopy cover.

Medium-large mammals

Nil APZs are expected to favour large mammals due to treatments promoting growth of grasses and herbs.

Small mammals Moderate to High

The removal of understorey habitat and logs / litter will have a moderate to high impact on small mammals. Wider APZs may further restrict the movement of animals through the site and a higher exposure to predation. Retention of some understorey patches will minimise impacts.

Hollow-dependent fauna

Low Impacts are expected to be Low for treatments due to the retention of large trees with hollows. Few large trees exist across the site.

Weed invasion Moderate Weed invasion may increase in treated areas due to increased light penetrating the ground layer and favouring weed species.

Introduced predators Moderate The removal of understorey vegetation may increase the movement and activity of introduced predators in these interface areas and create further ‘edge effects’.

Impacts on geotechnical risk

Geotechnical site assessments and analyses were conducted by Tony Miner (A.S Miner Pty. Ltd.) to provide advice on potential erosion risks and consequences as a product of vegetation removal for APZ works and works during implementation. These risks were analysed in a format that allowed the authors to understand the amount of work or care required to mitigate the risks. Results indicated that only Options D and E would have a significant geotechnical impact – however these ranged from moderate to very high in options D and E respectively. As outlined in Table 5, APZ options that require ‘very high care’ include areas where deep-seated landslide is likely or where active erosion is present. Geotechnical concerns, machinery movements and the work required to mitigate these risks would have required staged works over a number of years, and be highly dependent on appropriate weather.

Impacts on amenity

Community views on the impacts of amenity varied when addressed in the community-wide survey. When asked about the visual appearance of an APZ (of the width required to reduce BAL



25

ratings), 45 per cent responded like / like very much, 42 per cent selected dislike / dislike very much and 13 per cent were indifferent.

When survey respondents were asked to rate how important the visual impact of an APZ was when thinking about whether an APZ should be implemented or not, 45 per cent believed the visual appearance was very important. Respondents also felt that the likely changes to fauna abundance and sightings were also important – 45 per cent also rated it very important.

26

Options comparison for BAL outcomes

Table 9: Options comparison for those options that return a potential BAL outcome, including costs, benefits and potential implementation issues.

OPTIONS

OBJECTIVES /

CHARACTERISTICS

OPTION A: No change OPTION B: Re-siting OPTION C: Revised BAL and re-

siting

OPTION D: Revised BAL and

operationally feasible APZ

OPTION E: Revised BAL and

maximum APZ

Description BAL ratings as gazetted in the Planning Scheme, based on WRSC BAL Assessment Study (Terramatrix, 2016). No APZ.

BAL ratings as gazetted in Planning Scheme, and re-siting building footprints outside FZ within blocks to achieve lower BAL ratings where possible. No APZ.

Refreshed BAL ratings using updated, localised fuel assessments and fire modelling within the townships. Building footprints re-sited outside FZ where possible on properties. No APZ.

APZ implemented only in locations where operationally possible, and applying refreshed BAL assessment.

APZ implemented across the whole township despite operational limitations, and applying refreshed BAL assessment. Represents operationally and not operationally feasible APZ.

Capital cost to implement and maintain option

$0 $0 $0 Establishment: $400,000 – $2,025,000 Approximate annual maintenance: $85,000

Establishment: $650,000 - $2,275,000 Approximate annual maintenance: $115,000

Number of house sites (destroyed or damaged) with BAL-FZ exposure*

63 47 36

25 5

House sites taken out of FZ exposure with each option (added benefit)*

NA 16 11 (27 total taken out of FZ)

11 (38 total taken out of FZ) 20 (58 total taken out of FZ)

Capital cost per lot (beneficiary) for option implementation and maintenance

0 0 0 $36,000 -$185,000 establishment cost for 11 benefitting properties, +

$7,000 per year for ongoing maintenance

$21,000-$74,000 establishment cost for 31 benefitting properties, +

$4,000 per year for ongoing maintenance

Time for implementation Immediate Immediate for lots where possible 1-2 months 2-4 years; BAL outcomes not

guaranteed following implementation.

2-4 years if implementation possible;

BAL outcomes not guaranteed

following implementation.

Biodiversity impact No broad scale vegetation modification

required, therefore impact on

biodiversity assumed negligible.

No broad scale vegetation modification required, therefore impact on biodiversity assumed negligible.

No broad scale vegetation modification required, therefore impact on biodiversity assumed negligible.

Biodiversity impacts range from NIL in

large mammals to Moderate/High for

small mammals. Detail in Table 8.

Biodiversity impacts range from NIL

in large mammals to Moderate/High

for small mammals. Detail in Table 8.

Geotechnical impacts (as a function

of work required to mitigate risks)

NA NA NA Moderate High / Very High

Community views (derived from

amenity impact assessment &

visualisation tool)

Divergent community views – almost

30% surveyed prefer status quo.

Supported as part of a broader range of options to manage bushfire risk and impacts to towns.

Specific feedback not sought on this option, based on other engagement outcomes would be supported as a means of more accurately reflecting township hazards.

Divergent community views apparent on APZs. For those supporting APZs,

more than 70% prefer options that deliver overall bushfire safety and

management benefits when compared to BAL outcomes only. The APZ

options proposed do not contribute to this community preference.

Legal or policy impediments Existing status – already implemented and in place. No current legal or policy impediments

No current legal or policy impediments.

Application of new information in refreshed BAL assessment requires approval from Minister for Planning.

Significant legal and policy

impediments for State Government.

Significant legal and policy

impediments for State Government.

*The numbers in relation to houses taken out of BAL-FZ contain implicit assumptions that include the following:

Calculations and absolute house numbers are based on situations where a change to BAL extent on the property, or resiting had the capacity to reduce the BAL rating of the entire building footprint – not just a partial BAL reduction on the allotment.



27

These different methods of counting may therefore not directly match the numbers in the Revised BAL Analysis Report (Terramatrix, 2016). However, the base calculations and methodology are consistent.

28

Financial Cost

As outlined in Table 9, the operationally feasible APZ would only provide a benefit (with regards to

reduction of BAL ratings) to 11 fire-impacted house sites within the entire township if the refined

BAL ratings are also applied.

Given that there are very limited other material benefits provided by such an APZ on its own (i.e.

with respect to bushfire risk reduction outcomes, access, etc.), these 11 properties represent the

primary beneficiaries of an operationally feasible APZ.

Option D, the operationally feasible APZ, would require works on approximately 5.5 hectares. The

costs of establishing the operationally feasible APZ option (Option D) would be between $400,000

and $2.025 million, and likely closer to the upper limit. This is because implementation of the

operationally feasible APZ option would likely require compensation to landowners for land on

which an APZ would be sited or outright purchase of the land at approximately $1.35 million.

Option E, the maximum APZ (around the township), including feasible and non-feasible areas,

would require works on approximately 11 hectares and was calculated assuming “minimum

distance” widths (the minimum width of an APZ required to move adjacent properties out of full or

partial BAL-FZ exposure, into BAL-40). Establishment cost of the maximum APZ around the entire

township would be between $650,000 million and $2.275 million. It is possible that additional costs

may be associated with this option if land use agreements are required to implement Option E on

other private land parcels.

Bushfire risk reduction and support for landscape fuel management options

APZ options (feasible and maximum) were assessed against DELWP’s key performance criteria

for APZs. These key performance criteria (outlined in Technical Assessments) focus on supporting

bushfire risk reduction to the township and on landscape fire management activities. Neither of

these criteria was met by Option D (Table 9), while Option E was only able to partially meet the key

performance criteria of an APZ. That is, APZs that are designed to reduce BAL ratings as

described in Options C and D, on their own, do not support delivery of key landscape fire

management activities tailored at reducing bushfire risk to the townships of Wye River and

Separation Creek.

The APZ options (Options D and E) would be non-continuous, limited by steep terrain, and narrow

in many instances. These options would not provide or support safe access for firefighters or their

vehicles to conduct fire management activities – such as planned burning or back-burning.

Additionally, given the fire behaviour characteristics known to occur in the Otways, particularly

around Wye River and Separation Creek, the APZ options would not be effective in reducing

ember attack on adjacent properties, or ember attack on the township in the event of a bushfire.

Wye River and Separation Creek are vulnerable to long-range ember spotting (approximately 3-5

kilometres). An APZ is tens of metres wide and is not able to support fuel reduction burning would

have a negligible impact on reducing bushfire risk to the townships.

Information on the limitations of APZs was presented to the WRSC community by Justin Leonard

and Kevin Tolhurst, and presented in this video:

https://youtu.be/ELlUrgddQBM. This is further detailed in the Discussion section.

Legal and land tenure analysis

Assessment of legal options is detailed in the Discussion section.

https://youtu.be/ELlUrgddQBM



29

Fine grained fuel modelling and potential fire behaviour modelling

Indicative results of refreshed BAL assessments, using the fine-grained fuel modelling and

potential fire behaviour modelling undertaken for the townships of WRSC, are incorporated into the

consequence analysis (Table 7) and the options analysis (Table 9) above. Figures for impacted

house sites that are fully or partially within BAL-FZ should be considered indicative for the

purposes of this analysis only - they are based on, although separate to the BAL ratings provided

by Terramatrix Pty Ltd in the refreshed BAL assessment.

Community engagement

Results of community surveys and feedback indicate:

Respondents held divided views as to whether or not an APZ should be implemented around

the townships. 42 per cent of those responding to the whole community survey would prefer to

maintain the status quo, or implement another mechanism, as opposed to implementing any

APZ at this time (Figure 5).

For those who supported implementing an APZ, this preference was largely driven by desires

for improved bushfire safety and management outcomes as opposed to a desire to reduce

BAL ratings (Figure 6).

For those who preferred to maintain the status quo (no APZ) or investigate other options, the

main drivers of this preference were importance placed on preserving the natural environment

and the belief that APZs would not work or were not the best solution available.

There were 31 respondents to the overall community survey. In relation to the types of APZs

preferred by participants, 74 per cent of community respondents believed supporting firefighters

with safer and easier access for planned burning and fighting bushfires was more important than

reducing BAL ratings for properties immediately adjacent to APZs (Figure 7). In relation to

considering other means of reducing bushfire risk and implications across the settlements, 71 per

cent of community respondents believed it was more important to further investigate bushfire risk

reduction options throughout the whole settlement area as opposed to reducing BAL ratings for

properties immediately adjacent to APZs (Figure 8).

Figure 5: A graphical representation of community survey results in response to the question ' which

[APZ] option would you prefer at this time?’ with no clear indication of preference across the options.



30

Figure 6: A graphical representation of online community survey responses, outlining how important four components of APZ implementation are to residents’ decision-making processes.

Figure 7: A graphical representation of responses to the online community survey, illustrating how important supporting firefighter safety and access (green) is compared to only reducing BAL ratings for affected residents (purple).



31

Figure 8: A graphical representation of responses to the online community survey, illustrating whether respondents felt it was more important to further investigate other risk reduction options (blue) or to reduce BAL ratings (red).

Results of surveys conducted at neighbourhood cluster meetings are cluster-specific, and are summarised in cluster consequence tables (Appendix 3). Detailed neighbourhood cluster engagement outcomes are outlined in the APZ Community Engagement Report.



32

Analysis of all data collected and assessment of APZ options showed that there are impacts and

inherent limitations to establishing and maintaining any of the APZ options considered in this report

to deliver a BAL outcome while also supporting landscape fire management activities. These

limitations mean that any benefits derived from the APZ options could not be realised with certainty

nor in a way that aligns with community preferences and fire risk reduction outcomes.

BAL implications of APZs

In the initial settlement-wide BAL assessment for WRSC (Terramatrix, 2016), the building footprint

of the majority of fire-affected allotments was assessed as BAL-40 or BAL-FZ along the township

boundary – the highest two ratings of a possible six, with a small pocket assessed as BAL-29 on

the inner blocks. These ratings were the result of a combination of topography, fuel, vegetation

management assumptions and constraints as well as vegetation management activity within the

townships.

The outcomes of the initial BAL assessment study were accepted by State and Local Government.

Fire behaviour experts, such as those involved in this project, have reaffirmed that BAL-40 ratings

in the majority of instances appropriately reflect the bushfire hazard present to dwellings. The

objective of this APZ project was specifically to assess the implications (feasibility, costs, and

consequences) of an APZ around Wye River and Separation Creek, and the potential for any APZ

options to reduce the BAL ratings of fire-affected properties. It should be noted that BAL ratings are

not a proxy for bushfire risk; while they do indicate likely hazard exposure for a building during a

bushfire, they do not incorporate every component of bushfire risk that a township might face

during a bushfire.

Bushfire risk is managed in a variety of ways with activities and tools extending throughout the

landscape. Critical components of a holistic bushfire risk management strategy include fuel

reduction burning (undertaken by DELWP, PV and CFA), ensuring adequate access and

infrastructure support for suppression activities, management of fuels within residential blocks

within the townships and land use planning and building regulations.

Analysis showed that the APZ options considered operationally feasible to deliver, from a

mechanical point of view, could provide a BAL outcome (i.e. a potential reduction from BAL-FZ to

BAL-40) for up to 11 properties within WRSC if a refreshed BAL assessment was also applied to

the township. The minimum distance APZ options (Table 9) provide limited material bushfire risk

reduction. Therefore, the possible BAL rating reduction for approximately 11 properties is

considered to be the only benefit that an APZ would provide. This needs to be weighed against the

costs (financial and non-financial) and other consequences of establishing such an APZ. Similarly,

the certainty of benefit realisation needs to be carefully considered in decision-making.

BAL outcomes as a result of APZ assessments

The detailed and site specific information that was collected as part of the APZ assessment has enabled the refinement of BAL ratings for 93 properties in Wye River and Separation Creek. This refinement was due to a significant body of work by experts such as Kevin Tolhurst, Justin Leonard and Hamish Allan, in conjunction with local DELWP staff. More localised topography information (down to 0.5 m) was able to be combined with site-specific fuel analysis to, in some instances,

Discussion



33

lower the initial BAL ratings. This outcomes provides a certain and immediate outcome for property owners in WRSC to begin rebuilding.

Cost comparison

Recent presentations at the Building Design Exhibition convened by the Office of the Victorian

Government Architect demonstrated that fire-related elements in a BAL-40 structure generally

amount to an increase of 3 per cent to the total build cost, as many of these elements are already

required to meet other standards (e.g. energy efficiency, usage of toughened safety glass).

Estimating the average cost implications for rebuilding houses to BAL-FZ is challenging, given

variations in site characteristics, design factors and materials. The cost differential will also vary

depending on whether rebuilding works will involve retrofitting an existing dwelling, or designing a

new dwelling, with the latter providing opportunities for more cost-effective options to be included

throughout the design phase. The key driver of increased construction costs between BAL-40 and

BAL-FZ is the requirement for a higher standard of window system, including glass. Minimising the

use of large windows, or designing windows in a more strategic manner will minimise rebuild costs

significantly. While individual design choices influence cost substantially for each rebuild, estimates

from presentations at the Building Design Exhibition and Victorian Building Authority indicate that

percentage increase in cost between a BAL-40 and BAL-FZ house may result in a cost increase of

between ten and 20 per cent. While there is no “typical” house in WRSC, this may result in an

increase of between $50,000 and $70,000 per dwelling. However, given the generally high value of

houses in this area, this cost could be underestimated and will depend on design choices and

siting of those wishing to rebuild.

In order to assist residents to minimise rebuild costs, Government has supported a number of other

measures within its recovery program, such as supporting land capability and waste-water

technical studies, providing tailored technical advice, and engaging experts to develop guidance for

rebuilding in cost-effective ways that support holistic township resilience.

There are a number of options considered in this project which may also support residents to

rebuild in more cost effective ways, which need to be weighed up against township resilience

objectives. These include options to re-site dwellings, where possible, within residential allotments

to remove the rebuilding envelope from BAL-FZ exposure, and potential refresh of BAL

assessments using finer grained fuel assessments and localised fire behaviour modelling. These

options are not associated with a capital cost. Re-siting dwellings within the same block could

provide a benefit to, indicatively, 16 fire affected dwellings from a BAL perspective (25% of

impacted dwellings assessed as exposed to BAL-FZ). Re-siting dwellings where possible and

refreshing BAL assessments could benefit, indicatively, 43% of fire impacted dwellings with FZ

exposure.

Any APZ option if implemented will incur an implementation or establishment cost and an ongoing

maintenance cost, to provide assurance of benefits derived (through management of vegetation).

An operationally feasible APZ in WRSC – designed to reduce BAL ratings - would provide a BAL

outcomes to approximately 11 fire-affected house sites. With an implementation cost of up to

$2.025 million, which includes costs likely required to purchase adjacent freehold land; this would

result in a capital establishment cost of up to $185,000 for each of the 11 beneficiaries.

Maintenance would cost approximately $7,000 per beneficiary per year, ongoing, to support the

delivery of an ongoing benefit – or a total of approximately $75,000 per annum. This represents

3.75 times the annual budget of the DELWP Otway Fire District for APZ maintenance, which is



34

apportioned across other high risk townships – and where empirical analysis has found APZs to

have an appreciable bushfire risk outcome.

Bushfire risk reduction outcomes for Wye River and Separation Creek

Any APZ option that could potentially be implemented in Wye River or Separation Creek would

have a limited ability to reduce the risk of bushfire faced by the townships of Wye River and

Separation Creek.

Bushfire risk can be thought of as a product of likelihood and consequence. Because any APZ

option that could be established would be at the township interface, there is no inherent reduction

in the likelihood of ignition or the likelihood of impact of a bushfire. In some townships, APZs can

reduce the consequence of a bushfire as it impacts on a settlement (by reducing the intensity or

heat of a fire), thereby reducing the bushfire risk that a township faces. However, the fuel type,

topography and expected bushfire behaviour in the Otways landscape means that any APZ option

outlined in this report would provide very little impediment to a landscape scale bushfire, thereby

causing a marginal reduction in potential consequence.

During the Wye River – Jamieson Track fire, properties were primarily impacted by a township fire

that was ignited by long range spotting from the broader landscape that eventually burnt north out

of the townships towards the bushfire. Because of the vegetation type (largely wet forest) and

prevailing weather conditions in the immediate area around WRSC, DELWP and Parks Victoria

have an extremely limited capacity to conduct planned burning that would reduce the bark hazard

fuel loads that cause long range spotting.

An investigation conducted by Justin Leonard of the CSIRO determined that most structures in

WRSC were destroyed by a relatively low intensity township fire with flame heights averaging less

than 0.4 metres, largely spreading by house-to-house ignition and through township fuels on

private property. In response to this, EMV convened an Expert Panel to provide voluntary

guidelines for residents to ‘harden’ their properties to bushfire. These are innovative guidelines that

provide advice for residents to make not only their houses but their properties and townships more

adapted to fire – to ultimately reduce the spread and impact of bushfire once it has arrived in the

township. The investigation conducted by Leonard (2016)2 illustrated that bushfire risk mitigation

actions implemented at an allotment level, such as through hardening measures, are likely to

increase township resilience to a greater extent than any APZ constructed for the purpose of

reducing flame contact. This is particularly true for WRSC, where the risk to the townships is the

result of long-distance ember spotting (e.g. originating from five kilometres away) igniting township

fine fuels (e.g. leaf litter and vegetation), and other heavy fuels (such as retaining walls, tanks,

cars, etc.). The greater risk to life and property in a bushfire scenario in WRSC is more likely the

result of long-range ember spotting, rather than being attributable to any single fire front from the

adjacent forest. This risk cannot be overcome by an APZ alone.

The APZ options that we were asked to consider by the community, outlined in this report, do not

have the capacity to reduce either the likelihood of a bushfire starting or impacting WRSC, or the

consequence of a bushfire impacting on the townships. APZs cannot reduce long range ember

spotting (embers are more likely to be airborne and move over the top of any APZ implemented)

and because an operationally feasible APZ designed to reduce BAL ratings, such as those

2 Leonard, J, Opie, K, Blanchi, R, Newnham, G & Holland M 2016, Wye River / Separation Creek post-bushfire building survey findings, CSIRO Client

Report EP16924.



35

considered in this report (Table 9) would not encompass the boundary of the whole township, it

would provide only marginal benefit in reducing the consequence of impact by firefighter

intervention during an incident. Operationally feasible APZ options to reduce BAL ratings,

investigated through this report would also not support safe, effective, or reliable delivery of

landscape bushfire management options, such as planned burning to reduce fuel loads further

back behind the township interface in addition to suppression options.

Confidence of delivery

There are a variety of factors that limit the ability to deliver and confidently maintain an APZ in both

the short- and long-term and this limitation exists regardless of which body is responsible for

implementation and maintenance (i.e. State or local government, community, etc.) For a BAL

outcome to be realised, the Minister for Planning must be satisfied that the hazard reduction

mechanism can be maintained in the long-term. From the perspective of DELWP, on the basis of

the analyses undertaken on APZ options, even implementation of a technically feasible APZ option

would not provide guaranteed realisation of any benefits arising from such an APZ. These factors

are expanded on below and include crew safety during implementation and maintenance, legal

ability to establish and maintain an APZ on private land and the long lead time required for such

projects.

Legal considerations for establishment of an APZ

If an APZ was implemented, a suitable mechanism or agreement governing ongoing management

of the works, and ensuring a secure continued basis for maintenance of the APZ, would need to be

identified and implemented.

Any proposed changes to the Colac Otway Planning Scheme, in terms of BAL ratings, must be

approved by the Minister for Planning and would need to reflect a current state of hazard exposure.

Therefore, BAL assessments would not be able to reflect any APZ derived BAL reduction until after

its implementation - limiting its effectiveness in providing a BAL outcome to those seeking to

rebuild in the short and medium term.

Safety

A risk assessment based on the Department’s risk management framework outlined significant

safety risks for those undertaking establishment and maintenance works on any potential APZ

option. This is largely due to the steepness of the landscape and the underlying soil and

geotechnical profile, which is vulnerable to landslide. DELWP has assessed that year-on-year, the

risk to DELWP staff and contractors could not be mitigated to an acceptable level with any degree

of confidence, thereby compromising the ability to meet the performance standard of an APZ over

the long-term. Maintenance in a managed state, to realise benefits of any APZ, could not be

reliably provided.

In addition to the safety concerns to staff and contractors during implementation and maintenance,

the operationally feasible APZ options outlined above have a compromised ability to ensure

firefighter safety in the future. Under normal works arrangements, DELWP and its partner land

managers implement APZs to provide for the following, in supporting broader landscape fire

management options and risk reduction:

1. Vehicular access for firefighting vehicles and vegetation maintenance machines



36

2. A safer work environment for firefighters in the event of a fire (reduced radiation and easy

access and egress).

3. An established boundary from which to carry out hazard reduction burning, or in the event of

an approaching bushfire, back burning operations.

4. An area between vegetation and a structure to limit radiant heat, ember attack and flame

contact on the adjacent structure in the event of an approaching bushfire.

APZ options that are constructed to provide a BAL outcome, that were assessed in this study – D

and E (Table 9) - do not meet all the required performance characteristics of an APZ. This is due to

a variety of factors, but largely the non-continuous nature of the options and the steepness of the

slopes on which any APZ option would be implemented.

Resourcing

Given the high cost of annual maintenance of options (3.75 to 5.7 times the DELWP Otway

District’s annual APZ maintenance budget), it is highly unlikely that the Otway District would be

able to maintain any potential APZ to the required performance standard without supplementary

annual funding. The district’s annual maintenance budget is apportioned on the basis of need and

bushfire risk, meaning that any reprioritisation would compromise DELWP’s ability to provide

effective risk management to other locations where APZs have been shown to be effective risk

mitigation mechanisms.

APZs have a high opportunity cost – meaning that they require continuous allocation of funding for

maintenance once implementation has occurred for any benefits to be realised in the long-term.

This limits flexibility in responding to dynamic bushfire risk levels across the Otway District. The

APZ options assessed in this study do not support landscape bushfire risk management actions

that would reduce bushfire risk in the townships. Therefore, the implementation and maintenance

of the APZ options would result in allocation of public resources for limited and private benefit. This

arrangement does not support the shared risk management approach, driven by Victoria’s Safer

Together policy.

Design and planning timelines

Operational assessments conducted by local DELWP staff in the Otway District and Barwon South

West Region have estimated that implementing the APZ options as outlined above could take up to

four years. This timeframe includes design, obtaining appropriate planning approvals, and staged

works to establish an APZ in a steep area where vegetation removal must be staggered over time

to reduce geotechnical and erosion risks in the landscape. The timeframe also includes time for the

potential purchase of land or entering into agreements with landowners, and additional time to

seek funding or establish appropriate cost-sharing arrangements with other agencies or

beneficiaries. It is likely that this timeframe would not provide a suitable BAL reduction outcome for

residents wishing to rebuild in the short and medium term, thereby reducing the utility of an APZ for

this purpose.

Community views on APZ options

Two main issues that the community has expressed concern for during the engagement process include regulatory standards for rebuilding (and the potential subsequent financial implications of increased rebuilding standards) and the aesthetic impacts of vegetation management options, particularly following the removal of fire-affected trees within the WRSC townships.



37

For those community members who expressed a preference to not implement an APZ or to implement something else (42% of respondents in Fig. 5), this preference was driven by the value placed on the natural environment and a concern regarding environmental and aesthetic impacts. Aesthetic impacts were not the only driver of community views on the APZ options. Results from the community-wide survey suggest that the majority of residents in WRSC want the best outcome of the most people – even if that outcome does not involve an APZ. This theme is supported by a majority of people finding it more important to further investigate risk reduction options throughout the whole settlement area (71%) and support firefighters with safer and easier access to conduct planned burning and fight bushfires (74%) than reduce BAL ratings for properties immediately adjacent to APZs. Community surveys and comments show a clear community preference for supporting mechanisms that deliver broader benefits fire emergency firefighting and for strategies to reduce bushfire risk, such as planned burning. The APZ options that the residents of WRSC asked us to investigate in this study do not deliver on the community preferences outlined above.



38

Assessment conducted as part of this project has determined that there are geotechnical,

biodiversity and amenity impacts, high costs and significant limitations to establishing and

maintaining an APZ around the townships of Wye River and Separation Creek for the purpose of

reducing BAL ratings of properties adjacent to forested areas, particularly to reduce associated

construction costs.

Moreover, there is marginal benefit of implementing the APZ options assessed as part of this

project when compared to other mechanisms available to support township resettlement and

resilience. These mechanisms include those which can be pursued by individuals, such as re-siting

properties where feasible and building to the current regulatory standards, and those which can be

supported by government agencies or local government, such as ensuring that regulations are

targeted and effective and working together with the community through actions that implement

Safer Together such as community based bushfire management and emergency planning.

The technical assessment has shown that an APZ alone will not reduce the intensity or

consequence of a bushfire impacting on the townships of Wye River and Separation Creek, given

design limitations of APZs, their function, and expected fire behaviour in the area. Additionally, ,

the APZ options that are designed to reduce BAL ratings and which are operationally feasible do

not necessarily allow for safe firefighter access during an emergency, nor meet key performance

criteria, limiting their use as effective components to broader landscape bushfire management

options.

APZs are used in limited situations by public land managers as one of a suite of tools to facilitate

community emergency risk preparedness and bushfire risk management, and represent a

complementary tool to a broader bushfire risk management strategy. Their suitability for use and

efficacy in reducing bushfire risk needs to be assessed as part of a holistic strategy which

considers and prioritises suitable tools to most effectively manage risk to life and property across

the landscape, within a prioritised framework across the landscape and state.

The Project Team recommends that an APZ not be progressed at Wye River and Separation

Creek for the purposes of reducing BAL ratings and therefore construction costs.

Conclusion



39

In any landscape, there are a broad variety of actions that can reduce the likelihood, consequence

and overall bushfire risk that a township faces. DELWP, the CFA, COS and its partner agencies in

fire and emergency management are continuing to investigate the relative benefit of a variety of

options that are consistent the communities vision and requirements, and which reduce bushfire

risk in the communities of Wye River and Separation Creek.

In line with Safer Together, by strengthening engagement and partnering with the community a

better alignment of the actions taken to reduce the risk of bushfire with specific local values,

capabilities and needs will be achieved. This approach supports shared responsibility, including

appropriate community co-ownership of bushfire management and community resilience

outcomes, and enables individuals to better manage their bushfire risk.

While an APZ is not recommended for the purposes of reducing BAL ratings and construction

costs, vegetation management within and around the townships should be considered alongside

the full suite of actions that can be taken on public and private land to reduce bushfire risk and

build community resilience. DELWP is working with the communities of Wye River, Separation

Creek and Kennett River to develop a community based bushfire management plan, as a key

implementation action in Safer Together. The development of this plan provides the opportunity to

identify the most effective and appropriate mix of strategies and actions to reduce bushfire risk and

build community resilience - under a model of shared responsibility between individuals,

communities, State and local government.

Future Directions



40

Costs associated with APZ establishment, maintenance, and compliance

Establishment costings were calculated based on costs incurred during previous strategic fuel

break establishment in the Otway area. Maintenance and roading costs applied standard State

Roading Cost Models. Maintenance costs were further validated utilising local Otway Fire District

examples. Establishment and maintenance costs were further adjusted by four slope classes,

namely < 10 degrees, 10-25 degrees, 25-35 degrees and > 35 degrees.

Compliance costs have been estimated based on discussions with local governments (Colac

Otway Shire, Surf Coast Shire). Compliance costs include those costs associated with monitoring

and enforcing legal obligations of private landowners, such as requirements for managing fuel

loads on private properties adjacent to APZs. These obligations are typically carried out by

Municipal Fire Prevention Officers, authorised to enforce provisions of the Country Fire Authority

Act 1958. Costs also include education and awareness activities associated with compliance,

which are typically performed by municipal staff.

The land on which an APZ would be implemented is largely freehold land. Legal advice suggests

as potential options either acquiring the land directly, or financially incentivising landholders to

enter into agreements with DELWP and / or others to enable access to the land. For the purposes

of estimating implementation costs, these costs include the cost of purchasing the land outright,

expressed in the upper limit of implementation costs. It is assumed that financially incentivising

landowners would be less than this figure. Purchase price of the private land is approximately

$1.35 million, which is the listed sale price.

Table 10: A breakdown of cost estimates for construction and maintenance of potential APZ options in Wye River and Separation Creek.

APZ Construction

Costs

$ Estimate p/ha Description

$10,110.00 Mulching per ha. (1 forestry mulcher, 2 excavators, 1 bobcat)

$8,250.00 Tree Removal

$2,500 Project supervision

$1,000 Traffic Management

16.80% CPI (difference between costing model and today)

100% Ad Hoc variables

$

43,720.34 Total APZ construction cost p/ha

APZ Maintenance

Costs

$ Estimate p/ha Description

$ 3,750.00

Heavy vegetation maintenance - lashing & mulching up to 150mm

diameter

$ - Weed management

Appendix A – Cost breakdown



41


$

7,500.00 Total APZ maintenance cost p/ha/yr.

Road Construction

Costs

$ Estimate p/km Description

$ 12,600.00 Construction estimate using SRC maintenance tool (Class 5D/ 5E)

$2,500 Project supervision


$

43,790.00 Total road construction costs p/km

Road Maintenance Costs

$ Estimate p/km Description

$ 3,150.00 Maintenance estimate using SRC maintenance tool (Class 5D/5E)


$

6,300.00 Total road maintenance costs p/km/yr.

Additional considerations (one off costs?)

$ 100,000.00 Cultural Heritage Management plan(s) – Estimate

$ 150,000.00 Native Vegetation Offsets - Estimate

$ 25,000.00 Council costs (planning permits)



42

I. Cluster map (Figure 9)

II. Land tenure map (Fig 10)

III. Options maps – implications for impacted house sites of each option on exposure to BAL-FZ

ratings (Fig 11).

Appendix B – Mapping products



43

Figure 9: Cluster map identifying each of the eight neighbourhood clusters within Wye River and Separation Creek



44

Figure 10. Land tenure map of Wye River and Separation Creek and surrounds, with privately-owned forested land surrounding the townships, managed as part of an estate, shaded white. Public land on this map is shaded green.



45

Figure 11. Options maps and implications for BAL ratings - impact of Option A on WRSC properties with house sites exposed to BAL-FZ.



46

Figure 12. Options maps and implications for BAL ratings: Impact of Option B on WRSC properties with house sites exposed to BAL-FZ.



47

Figure 13. Options maps and implications for BAL ratings -impact of Option C on WRSC properties with house sites exposed to BAL-FZ.



48

Figure 14. Options maps and implications for BAL ratings -impact of Option D on WRSC properties with house sites exposed to BAL-FZ.



49

Figure 15. Options maps and implications for BAL ratings -impact of Option E on WRSC properties with house sites exposed to BAL-FZ.

50

I. Cluster 1 (Figure 16)

II. Cluster 2 (Figure 17)

III. Cluster 3 (Figure 18)

IV. Cluster 4 (Figure 19)

V. Cluster 5 (Figure 20)

VI. Cluster 6 (Figure 21)

VII. Cluster 7 (Figure 22)

VIII. Cluster 8 (Figure 23)

Appendix C – Cluster Engagement Maps

51

Figure 16: Consequence table for Cluster 1.

Cluster

#1.Riverside Drive-

Central and East

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses

within flame zoneCount of fire-affected house sites (destroyed or damaged) with full or

partial BAL FZ exposure4 4 1 1 0

2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits









No Benefit No Benefit No Benefit NA Low Benefit

3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale

Assessment reflects exposure for a 50 year period in all APZs in Wye










None None None NA Very High Risk


landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks







lines;

NA NA NA NA Very High Care

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget


Annual budget for Otway Fire District for APZ maintenance is $20K.

Estimated cost of maintenance for Option C is $150K/ year and for Option D

is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA NA 400%

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

NIL NIL NIL NIL

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

NIL NIL NIL NIL

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







38 38 38 NA 19

9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land

• Geotechnical and Safety RisksNA NA NA NA 2-4 years

Option C Option DPerformance

MeasureAdditional information about performance measure Option 1 Option A Option B



52

Figure 17: Consequence table for Cluster 2.

Cluster

#2.Riverside Drive-

West & Illowra Ave

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses



2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits









No Benefit No Benefit No Benefit NA Low Benefit

3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale











None None None NA Very High


landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks







lines;

NA NA NA NA Very High

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget




is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA NA 400%

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

-

6

-

-

-

NA NA NA

1

5

-

-

-

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

-

-

1

2

3

NA NA NA

2

4

-

-

-

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







66 66 66 NA 33

9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land


NA NA NA NA 2-4 years





53

Figure 18. Consequence table for Cluster 3.

Cluster

#3.Karingal Dr,

Coryule Ave,Durimbil

Ave and Koonya Dr

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses



2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits









No Benefit No Benefit No Benefit Moderate Benefit NA

3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale











None None None High Risk NA


landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks





NA NA NA Moderate to High Care NA

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget




is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA 400% NA

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

2

5

-

1

2

NA NA

2

2

2

4

-

NA

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

5

3

-

2

1

NA NA

4

2

4

-

-

NA

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







50 50 50 25 NA

9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land

• Geotechnical and Safety RisksNA NA NA 2-4 years NA





54

Figure 19. Figure 19. Consequence table for Cluster 4.

Cluster

#4.Wye River Council

Reserve (Gully and

Memorial Park) and

Wallace St

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses

within flame zone Count of fire-affected house sites (destroyed or damaged) with full or


2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits










3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale











None None None NA Moderate


landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks







lines;

NA NA NAModerate outside of

Gully; High in GullyNA

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget




is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA 400% NA

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

1

2 Could be better

3

-

-

NA NA

-

6

4

-

-

4

2

-

2

2

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

-

3

-

3

-

NA NA

-

9

-

1

-

6

-

1

1

2

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







30 30 30 15 Not calculated

9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land







55

Figure 20. Figure 20. Consequence table for Cluster 5.

Cluster

#5.Dunoon Road&

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses



2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits









No Benefit No Benefit No Benefit Very Low Benefit Low Benefit

3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale













landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks







lines;

NA NA NA Moderate Care Very High Care

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget




is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA NA 400%

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

1

-

1

-

2

NA NA

-

2

1

1

-

2

-

1

-

1

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

1

1

-

1

1

NA NA

-

3

-

1

-

2

1

-

1

-

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







40 40 40 40 20

9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land







56


Cluster

#6.Iluka Ave

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses



2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits










3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale











None None None

Moderate-High Risk

(assuming use of Haul

Rd)

Moderate-High Risk

(assuming use of Haul

Rd)


landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks







lines;

NA NA NA Very High Care Very High Care

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget




is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA 400% 400%

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

-

1

-

-

2

NA NA

2

1

-

-

-

-

2

1

-

-

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

-

-

1

-

2

NA NA

2

-

1

-

-

-

2

1

-

-

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







36 36 36 18 18

9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land







57


Cluster

#7.Bass Ave - West&

Harrington St

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses



2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits









No Benefit No Benefit No Benefit Low Benefit Low-Moderate Benefit

3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale













landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks







lines;

NA NA NA Moderate Care Very High Care

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget




is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA 400% 400%

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

2

-

-

-

3

NA NA

1

-

4

-

-

2

1

-

2

-

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

-

1

2

-

3

NA NA

2

-

4

-

-

2

2

-

2

-

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







Outside Town: 58-66

Internal Reserve: 34

Outside Town: 58-

66

Internal Reserve:

34

Outside Town: 58-

66

Internal Reserve:

34

Outside Town: 29-33


Outside Town: 29-33


9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land

• Geotechnical and Safety RisksNA NA NA 2-4 years 2-4 years





58


Cluster

#8. Mitchell Grove&

Olive St. This includes

east side of gully

reserve but not Bass

Ave.

Objectives

1) Minimise house




BAL

Count of houses



2) Maximise

Landscape Fire

Management Options

Constructed Scale

Benefits










3) Minimise Safety


and Contractors


& maintenance

Constructed Scale











None None None Moderate Risk

Moderate to High Risk

(only very small area of

steep area is required to

be treated


landslip risk to

infrastructure and

water quality

associated with APZ

Construction

Constructed Scale:

Care required to

mitigate Landslide

and Erosion Risks







lines;

NA NA NA Moderate Care Moderate Care

5) Minimise

maintenance cost to

Otway Fire District

% of total Otway

road and fuel

management

budget




is $250K/ year.

NA NA NA 400% 400%

6) Maximise

Landscape Amenity

Constructed Scale

Best

Good

Indifferent

Poor

Worst

-

-

-

1

7

NA NA

-

7

-

-

-

NA

7) Maximise


Strongly Support

Support

Indifferent

Opposition

Strong Opposition

-

-

1

-

8

NA NA

3

5

-

1

-

NA

8) Maximise

Biodiversity /

Ecosystem

Functioning

Modelled Native

Vegetation

Condition Score (0-

100)







Outside Town: 62


Outside Town: 62

Internal Reserve:

34

Outside Town: 62

Internal Reserve:

34

Outside Town: 31


Outside Town: 31


9) Minimise APZ

Implementation

Timeframe

Years (or portion

of)



• Tenure of Land







59



60

delwp.vic.gov.au

Documents

Asset Protection Zone Project - Shire of Colac Otway · Asset Protection Zone Project Wye River and Separation Creek 6 3. Provide an established boundary from which to carry out hazard